Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
06/07/2026 9:35 am
TL;DR: Agentless security platforms miss the self-hosted databases, on-prem Active Directory, and air-gapped environments where many NHIs still live, according to Token Security. Full NHI governance now depends on secure connectivity into systems that standard SaaS-first discovery cannot reach.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Token Security: Why Full Non-Human Identity Coverage Requires Connecting to Systems Everyone Else Can’t See
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams govern NHIs in private networks and disconnected systems?
A: They should treat network isolation as a governance design constraint, not an excuse for blind spots.
Q: Why do agentless NHI tools fail in hybrid infrastructure?
A: Agentless tools depend on reachability, so they struggle when identities live inside private subnets, on-prem systems, or air-gapped environments.
Q: What breaks when local service accounts are outside central governance?
A: Offboarding, rotation, and access review all become unreliable because the organisation cannot see the full identity surface.
Practitioner guidance
- Inventory non-public NHI dependencies first Map every self-hosted database, on-prem identity store, disconnected analytics system, and private workload that uses local credentials or service accounts.
- Validate coverage against unreachable systems Test whether your NHI platform can observe identities inside private subnets, air-gapped segments, and regulated enclaves without requiring inbound exposure.
- Use controlled outbound connectivity where visibility is blocked Prefer secure, encrypted outbound access patterns for internal identity inspection when direct integration is not possible.
What's in the full article
Token Security's full blog covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- The reverse proxy deployment pattern for internal environments that cannot be reached directly.
- Examples of how secure outbound connectivity is established without changing network posture.
- The specific production scenarios described for healthcare, telecom, and self-hosted databases.
- The platform-level implementation details behind querying local identity systems safely.
👉 Read Token Security's analysis of full NHI coverage in unreachable systems →
NHI visibility in disconnected systems: what teams miss?
Explore further
06/07/2026 9:50 am
Full NHI coverage is impossible if visibility stops at the cloud edge. Modern identity programmes often assume that agentless tools can see enough of the estate to govern risk. That assumption breaks in private subnets, on-prem environments, and air-gapped systems where the most sensitive NHIs often live. The implication is that coverage claims must be tested against network reality, not product reach.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 96% of organisations store secrets outside of secrets managers in vulnerable locations including code, config files, and CI/CD tools, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, which shows how often identity governance starts from partial inventory rather than complete coverage.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What is the difference between broad network access and controlled identity visibility?
A: Broad network access exposes more of the environment than governance needs, which can increase risk. Controlled identity visibility uses a narrow, encrypted pathway so a platform can observe identity state without granting open reach into the network. For practitioners, the distinction matters because governance should expand visibility, not expand attack surface.
👉 Read our full editorial: Full NHI coverage depends on reaching invisible systems
